Paid ($0.25). All 12 agent-legibility checks for a submitted site URL, each with status and detail, as a dated receipt signed live with a dedicated Ed25519 audit key (or explicitly unsigned while that key is unprovisioned - never a fabricated signature). Verify with verify_report. The signature proves what was checked and when, not that the site is good.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | the site URL to audit, e.g. "https://example.com" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the cost, live Ed25519 signing, the unsigned-unprovisioned edge case with a guarantee of 'never a fabricated signature', and the limitation that the signature proves only what was checked and when, not that the site is good.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place: cost, output contents, signature behavior, verification path, and signature limitation. The key billing fact is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers cost, return shape (status and detail per check, dated receipt), security edge cases, and how to verify the result, leaving nothing essential for invocation unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, url, is already fully described in the schema with an example. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond restating that a site URL is submitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States exactly what it does: returns all 12 agent-legibility checks for a submitted site URL with status and detail as a dated receipt. It mentions verify_report for verification, but does not explicitly contrast with site_audit_x402 or site_audit_summary, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use when a complete, signed URL audit is needed and notes the $0.25 cost, plus directs the agent to verify_report afterward. However, it gives no explicit guidance for choosing between this tool and its siblings like site_audit_x402 or site_audit_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The x402 variants are exact duplicates of three paid tools, differing only by payment rail, so an agent choosing between them can misselect if it does not account for x402/USDC. The rest are well separated: free summaries, paid details, single vs batch lookup, and verify_report each have clear roles.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a predictable feature_variant pattern like drift_summary, drift_report_x402, model_status_batch, and site_audit_summary. verify_report is the only action-styled outlier, but it still fits the readable and consistent naming approach.
Ten tools is not excessive for a service offering three product areas plus receipt verification, but three of those ten are x402 clones of existing tools, which adds redundancy. Deduplicating to seven logical operations would be tighter, so it earns a mild penalty.
The workflow surface is complete: every paid product has a free summary/preflight, paid full detail, and receipt verification, while model status offers single and batch lookup. Minor gaps such as no list-catalog or multi-URL site-audit batch exist, but they are not dead ends for the stated purpose.